Rojas v. United States of America
Isabel Rojas, as Administrator of the Estate of Jonathan Rojas, deceased v. United States of America
- Naomi Buchwald
- 1:23-cv-05743
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Isabel Rojas v. United States, Judge Buchwald denied the Government’s summary-judgment motion without prejudice and said liability would be addressed at a bench trial.
The ruling keeps Isabel Rojas’s estate claims against the United States open for a bench trial on liability; it does not decide whether the United States is liable.
What happened
Isabel Rojas v. United States concerns claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act involving medical malpractice, negligence, and wrongful death after Jonathan Rojas’s 2020 suicide. Rojas filed the case as administrator of her brother’s estate. The United States is the defendant because Jonathan Rojas received outpatient care at a federally covered health center.
The United States asked the court to enter summary judgment, which would have resolved the liability issue without a trial. Both sides submitted expert reports about the treatment and care Jonathan Rojas received. The court said the experts raised detailed questions that would be better evaluated through live testimony and cross-examination.
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald denied the Government’s motion without prejudice. The court said it would address liability after a bench trial, meaning a trial decided by the judge, and planned a conference about how to proceed.
The detailed version
- Rojas v. United States of America · No. 1:23-cv-05743
- Naomi Buchwald
- Sept. 3, 2025
Background
Isabel Rojas, Jonathan Rojas’s sister, brought this Federal Tort Claims Act case as administrator of his estate. She alleges medical malpractice, negligence, and wrongful death following his 2020 suicide. The opinion states that the negligence and wrongful-death claims are duplicative of the medical-malpractice claim and therefore need not be analyzed separately.
Jonathan Rojas was an outpatient at the Institute for Family Health’s Walton Family Health Center and Center for Counseling. The clinic was designated as a Public Health Service member under the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act. That designation provides Federal Tort Claims Act coverage for certain medical-malpractice suits involving the center and its employees, explaining why the United States is the defendant.
Motion and Analysis
The United States moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the record shows that no material factual dispute requires one. The parties submitted factual statements, expert reports, and legal briefs.
The parties’ experts offered opinions about the treatment and care Jonathan Rojas received before his suicide. Neither side challenged the expert reports under the rule governing the reliability and admissibility of expert evidence. The court noted that it would be the fact-finder in this Federal Tort Claims Act case. After reviewing the record, the court found that the expert evidence raised specific and nuanced questions better addressed at a liability trial with live witnesses, including cross-examination.
Ruling
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald denied the United States’ motion for summary judgment without prejudice to resolving the matter after a bench trial addressing liability. The court directed that a conference be scheduled to discuss the trial’s parameters, including whether the parties could use facts agreed to in their factual statements. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion at ECF No. 28.
The order did not determine whether the alleged malpractice occurred or whether the United States is liable.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.